Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Fed has Sold Half of all US Gold to Suppress Gold Prices
atimes.com — "the gold price suppression scheme was the cornerstone of Secretary Treasury Robert Rubin's 'strong dollar' policy", and "Treasury Secretary Paulson, a key member of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (popularly known as the Plunge Protection Team)" who chillingly said, "The United States will do what it takes to calm markets"
rpi22- 1175 diggs
- digg it
- lazycat, on 05/07/2008, -12/+64Gold, unlike paper greenbacks, can finally run out, you know?
- rpi22, on 05/07/2008, -11/+30The value of paper money is determined by the government. The value of gold is determined by the marketplace.
- americangoy, on 05/07/2008, -10/+18"The value of gold is determined by the marketplace."
Which in the final analysis, is ALSO determined by the government. :-)- rpi22, on 05/07/2008, -3/+12Well, they can try to suppress it, certainly. But their schemes will not work forever. And the harder they push it down, the more pressure that will build, until 'BOOM, straight to the moon!'
- kingmanic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2RPI22: There is a finite demand real for Gold while speculation is what usually drives the price. This naturally means any significant rise is artificial and temporary and any significant drop as well.
- jawagas, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I remeber doing this in AOE, it was one of the best methods of economic warfare
- TheUngod, on 05/07/2008, -3/+12Sounds backwards to me. The number on a dollar is meaningless, all that matters is what you can get with that dollar. While the government decides what number goes on the dollar, only the market can decide what the dollar is worth. On the other hand, if the government decides to add more dollars or take some away, the can manipulate the price of gold to whatever they want. Gold is still worth the same in trade, but in "dollar" value, it is not.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -12/+8Wow you're dumb. The value of ANYTHING on this planet is determined by the market.
- Dumbledorito, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Yet markets can be manipulated and/or run on irrationality.
Tulip bulbs, anyone? - mijelh, on 05/07/2008, -6/+5I don't think there is a reason to be impolite, furthermore you are wrong, because some governments have laws restricting markets. There are some of this restrictions which can be bypassed and the items subject of the restriction acquire a market value - for instance, smuggling forbidden stuff like drugs - In other cases the restriction cannot be bypassed, like buying a government-constructed house in some countries. You can only buy it at a price determined by the state, and you cannot sell it.
So not the value of everything is determined by the market- redxxx, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3the price of everything is not determined by the market.
while value and price are frequently related, they are not the same.
in the housing example you gave, there are almost always shortages because the price is artificially lower than the value. - Number23, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Nothing escapes the market. What is controlled by price is constrained by supply. Let’s suppose the government decreed that henceforth $1 will purchase a gallon of gas. What do you suppose would happen the supply of gas? Would the supply of gas increase or decrease?
Smuggling is a perfect example of markets in action. A demand exists and at a certain price the demand will be met. - mijelh, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I think that redxxx made a point noting that price and value are different things, which I probably had confused.
Anyway, as value cannot be measured objectively other than by price, and though I agree with number23 in that smuggling is a perfect example of market in action, and works for the gas example, it can't be done always , like with the houses I mentioned before.
The demand can exist (or not), and the people would be willing to pay a certain amount of money (can we maybe call it "value"?), but the price will always be te one fixed by te government. Furthermore you cannot modify the offer because you cannot build houses on protected areas.
- redxxx, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3the price of everything is not determined by the market.
- Dumbledorito, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Yet markets can be manipulated and/or run on irrationality.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8The value of paper money is also determined by the marketplace.
- stealthc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1But the supply is arbitrarily controlled by the government, which is a heavy influence on the market's valuation of it.
- ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -6/+5It shows how truly stupid people are, that 12 people dugg up your comment.
- kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -5/+3Keep pimping the debt system, fool.
- ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5And you show your stupidity/myopia, but throwing in a comment that has NOTHING to do with the topic.
- kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2My statement actually did arise in error. I thought you were responding to the top post and didn't realize you were responding to the reply. Honest mistake. I thought you were saying someone was stupid for digging a statement about the relative finite nature of gold versus debt-backed paper. Carry on.
- kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -5/+3Keep pimping the debt system, fool.
- americangoy, on 05/07/2008, -10/+18"The value of gold is determined by the marketplace."
- TheUngod, on 05/07/2008, -9/+12So, if the government says "mmm your dollar is now worth 2" that makes it true? No. The value of just about everything is determined by the market. Just because a dollar says "1 dollar" it doesn't mean it's worth whatever the government says it is.
- rpi22, on 05/07/2008, -4/+9No, the government can either increase or decrease the money supply, thereby controlling the value of the dollar. If the demand for the dollar goes up at the same time the government decides to increase the supply, this will lead to a stable level of value, or price stability which is "supposedly" the goal of the fed.
- TheUngod, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2And how does this not effect goods? Increasing or decreasing the money supply effects more than just money.
- slicerace, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4You need to really look on Wikipedia for an explanation of what "inflation" means.
- TheUngod, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2And how does this not effect goods? Increasing or decreasing the money supply effects more than just money.
- rpi22, on 05/07/2008, -4/+9No, the government can either increase or decrease the money supply, thereby controlling the value of the dollar. If the demand for the dollar goes up at the same time the government decides to increase the supply, this will lead to a stable level of value, or price stability which is "supposedly" the goal of the fed.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/07/2008, -21/+7I so pray the gods, on my knees, that eventually the US will crash. It has a strong economy but eventually even a T Rex can be brought down by a thousand cuts. And as soon as the US dies the people of the world can move in and butcher this monstrosity globalist corporocrat populist capitalism has become.
We need to globally move back to accountable, socialist capitalism, with decent checks and balances and deep respect for freedom, rationality and science.- mooseontheloose, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9"We need to globally move back to accountable, socialist capitalism"
Back to? When did that make-believe era exist, exactly? When were there more regulatory agencies and federal oversight than exist today?- kingmanic, on 05/07/2008, -3/+8Most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and almost anyone in the west including the US runs on some degree of "social Capitalist" system. Or did you think social security was a pure capitalist idea?
- superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -3/+10Sorry buddy, the Kremlins days are over. I'd prefer not to spend the rest of my life in bread and vodka lines, kthk.
- Waiting2awake, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3You are about to - and it wasn't brought on by anything socialist either bucko.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Odd, the US right now is a spitting image of russia in the late 80s.
- stealthc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1@ Waiting2awake:
Those days may be coming, but they WERE brought on by socialism. Just because our government calls what it does "capitalism" doesn't make it so.
- mooseontheloose, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9"We need to globally move back to accountable, socialist capitalism"
- richmomz, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Oh, they're finding ways to sell gold that doesn't even exist, through ETF's and gold mining companies hedging gold deposits that haven't been dug up yet. But eventually it will catch up with them.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6I dugg you up and then noticed you had said "value." Government cannot set the value of things because value is subjective.
Then again you do have a little red anarchy symbol so you may subscribe to the view that it is objective.- mijelh, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2I don't understend why you think an anarchist may consider the value of things as objective. No sarcasm at all here, I'm not an expert on the subject and I'm curious to know.
- simpleid, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1go long on gspg : )
- ontain, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4the fed is just making sure that the gold gets back into the hands of the rich europeans ;)
- LeeSoong, on 05/07/2008, -7/+2blaa blaa blaa - more and more gold is dug up out of the ground every day of the week.
No shortage, no problem - for a metal with few practical uses, gold is a non-story. - Heysal, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2So who do you think is going to own us when paper collapses and we don't have the gold reserves to make the switch to metal backed money? Maybe that's why Obama is trying to sell us to the UN? SEE: Bill S2433 - on it's way to the Senate now - will give our rights to the UN - they will take our guns, tax us, tell us how to parent, etc.
Without our own gold stock we are screwed. Let the gold rush begin. - Rich711, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Listening to Diggers argue about the economy and gold's effect on the dollar is like being stuck in a special-ed class as they argue who would win in a fight between Batman and Inspector Gadget.
- rpi22, on 05/07/2008, -11/+30The value of paper money is determined by the government. The value of gold is determined by the marketplace.
- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -15/+46What a bunch of idiots...
- CrazedLeper, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4So what do you think they'll do with the other half? I'm thinking "sell that too".
- pitlord, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3They know that Gold is going to come crashing back down to earth when the next bubble bursts and they will be ready to buy it all back and then some. What did you think the whole global market was going to just shut its doors because there are problems in the housing market?
>.>
It is no wonder so many of you will spend your lives in debt.
- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -34/+123In case anybody doesn't understand why I am calling these people idiots I will explain: there is no intrinsic value to paper money. The only value that it really has is directly related to what materials underpin a currency. Please read the following (it is huge but you will learn something).
Thomas Paine on Paper Money
I remember a German farmer expressing as much in a few words as the whole subject requires; "money is money, and paper is paper."
All the invention of man cannot make them otherwise. The alchemist may cease his labors, and the hunter after the philosopher's stone go to rest, if paper can be metamorphosed into gold and silver, or made to answer the same purpose in all cases.
Gold and silver are the emissions of nature: paper is the emission of art. The value of gold and silver is ascertained by the quantity which nature has made in the earth. We cannot make that quantity more or less than it is, and therefore the value being dependent upon the quantity, depends not on man. Man has no share in making gold or silver; all that his labors and ingenuity can accomplish is, to collect it from the mine, refine it for use and give it an impression, or stamp it into coin.
Its being stamped into coin adds considerably to its convenience but nothing to its value. It has then no more value than it had before. Its value is not in the impression but in itself. Take away the impression and still the same value remains. Alter it as you will, or expose it to any misfortune that can happen, still the value is not diminished. It has a capacity to resist the accidents that destroy other things. It has, therefore, all the requisite qualities that money can have, and is a fit material to make money of — and nothing which has not all those properties can be fit for the purpose of money.
Paper, considered as a material whereof to make money, has none of the requisite qualities in it. It is too plentiful, and too easily come at. It can be had anywhere, and for a trifle.
There are two ways in which I shall consider paper.
The only proper use for paper, in the room of money, is to write promissory notes and obligations of payment in specie upon. A piece of paper, thus written and signed, is worth the sum it is given for, if the person who gives it is able to pay it, because in this case, the law will oblige him. But if he is worth nothing, the paper note is worth nothing. The value, therefore, of such a note, is not in the note itself, for that is but paper and promise, but in the man who is obliged to redeem it with gold or silver.
Paper, circulating in this manner, and for this purpose, continually points to the place and person where, and of whom, the money is to be had, and at last finds its home; and, as it were, unlocks its master's chest and pays the bearer.
But when an assembly undertakes to issue paper as money, the whole system of safety and certainty is overturned, and property set afloat. Paper notes given and taken between individuals as a promise of payment is one thing, but paper issued by an assembly as money is another thing. It is like putting an apparition in the place of a man; it vanishes with looking at it, and nothing remains but the air.
Money, when considered as the fruit of many years' industry, as the reward of labor, sweat and toil, as the widow's dowry and children's portion, and as the means of procuring the necessaries and alleviating the afflictions of life, and making old age a scene of rest, has something in it sacred that is not to be sported with, or trusted to the airy bubble of paper currency.
By what power or authority an assembly undertakes to make paper money, is difficult to say. It derives none from the Constitution, for that is silent on the subject. It is one of those things which the people have not delegated, and which, were they at any time assembled together, they would not delegate. It is, therefore, an assumption of power which an assembly is not warranted in, and which may, one day or other, be the means of bringing some of them to punishment.
I shall enumerate some of the evils of paper money and conclude with offering means for preventing them.
One of the evils of paper money is that it turns the whole country into stock jobbers. The precariousness of its value and the uncertainty of its fate continually operate, night and day, to produce this destructive effect. Having no real value in itself it depends for support upon accident, caprice, and party; and as it is the interest of some to depreciate and of others to raise its value, there is a continual invention going on that destroys the morals of the country.
It was horrid to see, and hurtful to recollect, how loose the principles of justice were left, by means of the paper emissions during the war. The experience then had should be a warning to any assembly how they venture to open such a dangerous door again.
As to the romantic, if not hypocritical, tale that a virtuous people need no gold and silver, and that paper will do as well, it requires no other contradiction than the experience we have seen. Though some well-meaning people may be inclined to view it in this light, it is certain that the sharper always talks this language.
There are a set of men who go about making purchases upon credit, and buying estates they have not wherewithal to pay for; and having done this, their next step is to fill the newspapers with paragraphs of the scarcity of money and the necessity of a paper emission, then to have a legal tender under the pretense of supporting its credit, and when out, to depreciate it as fast as they can, get a deal of it for a little price, and cheat their creditors; and this is the concise history of paper money schemes.
But why, since the universal customs of the world has established money as the most convenient medium of traffic and commerce, should paper be set up in preference to gold and silver? The productions of nature are surely as innocent as those of art; and in the case of money, are abundantly, if not infinitely, more so. The love of gold and silver may produce covetousness, but covetousness, when not connected with dishonesty, is not properly a vice. It is frugality run to an extreme. But the evils of paper money have no end. Its uncertain and fluctuating value is continually awakening or creating new schemes of deceit. Every principle of justice is put to the rack, and the bond of society dissolved. The suppression, therefore, of paper money might very properly have been put into the act for preventing vice and immorality.
The pretense for paper money has been that there was not a sufficiency of gold and silver. This, so far from being a reason for paper emissions, is a reason against them.
As gold and silver are not the productions of North America, they are, therefore, articles of importation; and if we set up a paper manufactory of money, it amounts, as far as it is able, to prevent the importation of hard money, or to send it out again as fast it comes in; and by following this practice we shall continually banish the specie, till we have none left, and be continuously complaining of the grievance instead of remedying the cause.
Considering gold and silver as articles of importation, there will in time, unless we prevent it by paper emissions, be as much in the country as the occasions of it require, for the same reasons there are as much of other imported articles. But as every yard of cloth manufactured in the country occasions a yard the less to be imported, so it is by money, with this difference, that in the one case we manufacture the thing itself and in the other we do not. We have cloth for cloth, but we have only paper dollars for silver ones.
As to the assumed authority of any assembly in making paper money, or paper of any kind, a legal tender, or in other language, a compulsive payment, it is a most presumptuous attempt at arbitrary power. There can be no such power in a republican government: the people have no freedom — and property no security — where this practice can be acted: and the committee who shall bring in a report for this purpose, or the member who moves for it, and he who seconds it merits impeachment, and sooner or later may expect it.
Of all the various sorts of base coin, paper money is the basest. It has the least intrinsic value of anything that can be put in the place of gold and silver. A hobnail or a piece of wampum far exceeds it. And there would be more propriety in making those articles a legal tender than to make paper so.
It was the issuing base coin, and establishing it as a tender, that was one of the principal means of finally overthrowing the power of the Stuart family in Ireland. The article is worth reciting as it bears such a resemblance to the process practiced in paper money.
Brass and copper of the basest kind, old cannon; broken bells, household utensils were assiduously collected; and from every pound weight of such vile materials, valued at four pence, pieces were coined and circulated to the amount of five pounds normal value. By the first proclamation they were made current in all payments to and from the King and the subjects of the realm, except in duties on the importation of foreign goods, money left in trust, or due by mortgage, bills or bonds; and James promised that when the money should be decried, he would receive it in all payments, or make full satisfaction in gold and silver. The nominal value was afterwards raised by subsequent proclamations, the original restrictions removed, and this base money was ordered to be received in all kinds of payments As brass and copper grew scarce, it was made of still viler materials, of tin and pewter, and old debts of one thousand pounds were discharged by pieces of vile metal amounting to thirty shillings in intrinsic value. (Leland's History of Ireland, vol. iv. p. 265.)
Had King James thought of paper, he needed not to have been at the trouble or expense of collecting brass and copper, broken bells, and household utensils.
The laws of a country ought to be the standard of equity, and calculated to impress on the minds of the people the moral as well as the legal obligations of reciprocal justice. But tender laws, of any kind, operate to destroy morality, and to dissolve, by the pretense of law, what ought to be the principle of law to support, reciprocal justice between man and man — and the punishment of a member who should move for such a law ought to be death.
When the recommendation of Congress, in the year 1780, for repealing the tender laws was before the Assembly of Pennsylvania, on casting up the votes, for and against bringing in a bill to repeal those laws, the numbers were equal, and the casting vote rested on the speaker, Colonel Bayard.
"I give my vote," said he, "for the repeal, from a consciousness of justice; the tender laws operate to establish iniquity by law." But when the bill was brought in, the House rejected it, and the tender laws continued to be the means of fraud.
If anything had or could have a value equal to gold and silver, it would require no tender law; and if it had not that value it ought not to have such a law; and, therefore, all tender laws are tyrannical and unjust and calculated to support fraud and oppression.
Most of the advocates for tender laws are those who have debts to discharge, and who take refuge in such a law, to violate their contracts and cheat their creditors. But as no law can warrant the doing an unlawful act, therefore the proper mode of proceeding, should any such laws be enacted in future, will be to impeach and execute the members who moved for and seconded such a bill; and put the debtor and the creditor in the same situation they were in, with respect to each other, before such a law was passed.
Men ought to be made to tremble at the idea of such a bare-faced act of injustice. It is in vain to talk of restoring credit, or complain that money cannot be borrowed at legal interest; until every idea of tender laws is totally and publicly reprobated and extirpated from among us.
As to paper money, in any light it can be viewed, it is at best a bubble. Considered as property, it is inconsistent to suppose that the breath of an assembly, whose authority expires with the year, can give to paper the value and duration of gold. They cannot even engage that the next assembly shall receive it in taxes. And by the precedent (for authority there is none), that one assembly makes paper money, another may do the same, until confidence and credit are totally expelled, and all the evils of depreciation acted over again. The amount, therefore, of paper money is this, that it is the illegitimate offspring of assemblies, and when their year expires, they leave a vagrant on the hands of the public….
Paper money is like dram-drinking, it relieves for a moment by deceitful sensation, but gradually diminishes the natural heat, and leaves the body worse than it found it. Were not this the case, and could money be made of paper at pleasure, every sovereign in Europe would be as rich as he pleased. But the truth is, that it is a bubble and the attempt vanity. Nature has provided the proper materials for money: gold and silver, and any attempt of ours to rival her is ridiculous….
Paper money appears at first sight to be a great saving, or rather that it costs nothing; but it is the dearest money there is. The ease with which it is emitted by a- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -11/+36Paper money appears at first sight to be a great saving, or rather that it costs nothing; but it is the dearest money there is. The ease with which it is emitted by an assembly at first serves as a trap to catch people in at last. It operates as an anticipation of the next year's taxes. If the money depreciates, after it is out, it then, as I have already remarked, has the effect of fluctuating stock, and the people become stock-jobbers to throw the loss on each other.
If it does not depreciate, it is then to be sunk by taxes at the price of hard money; because the same quantity of produce, or goods, that would procure a paper dollar to pay taxes with, would procure a silver one for the same purpose. Therefore, in any case of paper money, it is dearer to the country than hard money, by all the expense which the paper, printing, signing, and other attendant charges come to, and at last goes into the fire.
Suppose one hundred thousand dollars in paper money to be emitted every year by the assembly, and the same sum to be sunk every year by taxes, there will then be no more than one hundred thousand dollars out at any one time. If the expense of paper and printing, and of persons to attend the press while the sheets are striking off, signers, etc. be five percent., it is evident that in the course of twenty years' emissions, the one hundred thousand dollars will cost the country two hundred thousand dollars. Because the paper maker's and printer's bills, and the expense of supervisors and signers, and other attendant charges will in that time amount to as much as the money amounts to; for the successive emissions are but a recoinage of the same sum.
But gold and silver require to be coined but once, and will last a hundred years (better than paper will one year) and at the end of that time be still gold and silver. Therefore, the saving to government, in combining its aid and security with that of the bank in procuring hard money, will be an advantage to both, and to the whole community.
The case to be provided against, after this, will be that the government do not borrow too much of the bank, nor the bank lend more notes than it can redeem; and, therefore, should anything of this kind be undertaken, the best way will be to begin with a moderate sum, and observe the effect of it. The interest given the bank operates as a bounty on the importation of hard money, and which may not be more than the money expended in making paper emissions.- petemcfraser, on 05/07/2008, -11/+22Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur.
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non recusandae. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.- sacherjj, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Well played, sir.
- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1translation for us layman?
- petemcfraser, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Latin for "bla bla bla bla bla bla" for over 500 years.
And to prove my point that if you put something long on Digg, you have good odds of getting dugg up because nobody reads it.
- petemcfraser, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Latin for "bla bla bla bla bla bla" for over 500 years.
- loquax, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Illegitimi non carborundum
- Midoc, on 05/07/2008, -3/+19Holy god, just put up a link next time.
- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Good point, I probably should have just posted it up and linked it but I recieved it in an email from a friend so I figured I'd just post it. Sorry for making you scroll down so far : )
- Kyan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5rAMEN.
- petemcfraser, on 05/07/2008, -11/+22Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
- twiztidsinz, on 05/07/2008, -5/+22holy ***** tl;dnr....
But I'm pretty sure I agree with you as I believe you're saying paper money has no real value as opposed to gold which is a limited resource.- RealmDown, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Too Long; Do Not Recessatate ?
*Shrug* ok, that works too.....- twiztidsinz, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Too Long; Did Not Read
- jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Since you didn't read it, how can you know?
Yes, it was long. However, it was at the very least educational, and it was written by Thomas Payne. Perhaps you've heard of him?
Short attention spans will be the death of this country.
- RealmDown, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Too Long; Do Not Recessatate ?
- jamesLankford, on 05/07/2008, -13/+27"there is no intrinsic value to paper money"
and there there is no intrinsic value to gold either; its just a rock
there are many rocks that are more rare, and have more desirable metallurgical properties
what makes any government currency valuable is the trust other governments put into the ability of the first government to pay its debts;
the ability to pay is not based on how many rocks you have but on your ability to attract businesses, produce products the rest of the world wants and have a thriving, flourishing marketplace- zephc, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6"and there there is no intrinsic value to gold either; its just a rock"
Gold makes an pretty damn good conductor, whereas paper money just burns for a few seconds, and electronic credit doesn't really exist at all.
Gold's classical value was its ability to be alloyed with other metals to make jewelry. It does, however, make for heavy and terrible sounding fiddles.- MiDri, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I see, so your saying that golds value is directly related to how many of the devil's golden fiddles go missing?
- rizzo2008, on 05/07/2008, -0/+15It can be any limited resource. The key to hard money is that there is a limited amount of it and therefore a central bank cannot manipulate the money supply freely.
- redxxx, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Why limit it to just resource. Why not figure out some way that it could reflect all those resources available to a state? This way your economy isn't tied to the supply of one particular good, which can't be controlled and can be other large economies.
- silentboom, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Gold has had value since the first civilizations found some. Gold will always have value unless we find a way to produce it from another element. Paper has the value of paper and gold has the value of gold. When the imaginary confidence in paper is gone, the gold is still valuable all over the world.
- stealthc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1This isn't about *gold* as much as it is that money should be a physical, tangible, valuable thing instead of some airy piece of imagination printed on paper. If you don't like gold, fine, let's make it silver, or uranium, or seashells. You making fun of gold does not negate Thomas Paine's point. The important part is that government not have the power to arbitrarily make more of it out of thin air. When they do that it has the same effect as counterfeiting. Through diluting everyone else's purchasing power, government's printed money transfers wealth from the people to the bureaucrats and bankers first in line at the printing press. This is a form of welfare for the rich and powerful. That is the only function it serves, and the only reason it was ever instituted in this country. It is economic poison.
- zephc, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6"and there there is no intrinsic value to gold either; its just a rock"
- stix213, on 05/07/2008, -24/+4Who the hell would spend the time to read this rant?
- jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -2/+6The founding fathers, most likely. Most of the people who worked to free the colonies from the crown. Anyone with half a brain.
Thomas Payne. Look him up. Educate yourself.
- jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -2/+6The founding fathers, most likely. Most of the people who worked to free the colonies from the crown. Anyone with half a brain.
- slayernine, on 05/07/2008, -26/+2Much too long for a comment, buried.
- econdr, on 05/07/2008, -11/+3people are so dumb. would you have leonardo da vinci build you a helicopter or issac newton design the space shuttle? sure they were respective geniuses of their times, but we are way smarter now. thomas paine was a propagandist whose job it was to provoke the revolution, period. even economists 75 years ago don't know what we know now about the world economy and globalism. don't quote some dumbass from the 18th century like hes relevant today... you are just confusing yourself.
and especially ESPECIALLY dont copy and paste entire articles from some website. thats annoying and nobodys going to read it.- kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7I guess we should ignore everything Newton said too then?
- econdr, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1that's not what i said. dumbass
- econdr, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1thomas paine's opinion on monetary economics is about as useful as sigmund freuds opinion on 20th century political theory.
he has one area of expertise. that doesn't make him an expert in everything. if you need heart surgery do you go to an auto mechanic?
not to mention the fact that things are much more different and complex hundreds of years later - a1532b, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Econdr, you are stupid. People are not smarter now then they were hundreds of years ago, we simply have a greater understanding of our universe and because of that we have created more advanced technology. If Leonardo Da vinci was alive today I'm sure he could design a damn good helicopter. ***** off troll!
- kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7I guess we should ignore everything Newton said too then?
- econdr, on 05/07/2008, -11/+3people are so dumb. would you have leonardo da vinci build you a helicopter or issac newton design the space shuttle? sure they were respective geniuses of their times, but we are way smarter now. thomas paine was a propagandist whose job it was to provoke the revolution, period. even economists 75 years ago don't know what we know now about the world economy and globalism. don't quote some dumbass from the 18th century like hes relevant today... you are just confusing yourself.
- kingmanic, on 05/07/2008, -9/+8Nothing has absolute value, you get for it only what others will pay. Some have practical purposes and money is a place holder for other goods. At one time Gold was used as a secondary place holder but it was just a system abstraction. Removing it has not hurt the world economy but resuming it would as it would seriously hedge the ability for economies ot grow and limit it to the amount of gold we have. It would also then limit the practical uses for Gold (liek it did to diamonds before they were able to manufacture them) because of high prices. Gold does have many practical purposes such as circuit boards etc... Governments holding a lot of it would limit this and be further counter productive.. But you Gold standard cultists can say as you please, the odds for reverting are slim to none.
- sacherjj, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Reverting to the Gold standard will not happen until the dollar completely collapses, ala Zimbabwe right now. Everyone there is a billionaire, but can't buy anything. It would be great to have competing currencies. The powers that be, the same that confiscated all of the Liberty dollar headquarters, will never let that happen. Why? Because an ounce of gold today buys what it did in 1900. A top of the line suit in 1900 and a top of the line suit today. The dollar doesn't. Having a "real" currency available would show how much of a joke the fiat dollar really is. The powers that be will not let that happen over our dead bodies.
- covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Utter crap. Cherry-picking your points of reference make it possible to argue anything. Here, try this: In 1980 1oz gold priced at around $780 would buy you 18.4 barrels of oil priced at $37.42 (adjusted for inflation, this is only a little below current prices). At today's prices of $872/oz and $110/bbl an ounce of gold buys you 7.9 barrels. Therefore, last time gold and oil were at the top of a bubble, an ounce of gold bought well over twice as much oil as it does now, even though oil is about the same price (adjusted for inflation) now as it was then.
Gold has NO intrinsic value, it's subject to market fluctuations just like anything else.- imacommi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1In the same fashion you could argue that nothing has intrinsic value. Things are only worth what other people are willing to pay for them. But lets be honest, both gold and oil have intrinsic value because there is limited supply of both. The value at which they trade will move up and down but at the end of the day there is more value for gold and oil then there is paper, and that is the whole point of this thread.
- sienar, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1dude, you're comparing the value of one resource to another, that doesn't work. prices of raw resources fluctuate in comparison to each other, especially when manipulated like oil is.
- xienze, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3So when gold was worth about a third of what it is today back in 2001, did it still buy a top-of-the-line suit? Or to put it another way, has the cost of a top-of-the-line suit tripled in seven years? Didn't think so...
If the "gold never loses value" crowd were right, the historic chart would look like an ever-increasing line without any dips whatsoever (because paper currency inflation always occurs). Of course, that's not what it looks like, now does it? Wonder why...- sacherjj, 3 hr 54 min ago, -0/+1Of course it fluctuates. However, it does not collapse, as all fiat currencies throughout history have done.
- covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Utter crap. Cherry-picking your points of reference make it possible to argue anything. Here, try this: In 1980 1oz gold priced at around $780 would buy you 18.4 barrels of oil priced at $37.42 (adjusted for inflation, this is only a little below current prices). At today's prices of $872/oz and $110/bbl an ounce of gold buys you 7.9 barrels. Therefore, last time gold and oil were at the top of a bubble, an ounce of gold bought well over twice as much oil as it does now, even though oil is about the same price (adjusted for inflation) now as it was then.
- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't say I am a cultist : ) I tend to agree with what you are saying as I did with chambana below, but my problem with our currency is that there is nothing backing it other than our governments word. I personally believe that a currency would work best if it was a little bit of both. There is definitely some value attached to the word that our government gives, but I don't think that the ENTIRE value of our currency should be based on this word and good faith alone. Maybe even some sort of a fractional reserve system would work best, who knows but the issue needs to be brough out in the open more than it is now. Look at all the problems we are having with this currency, and it's depriciation. I do personally advocate some sort of "gold/silver/commodity standard" for our currency, but I would love to hear more about how you think it should work and if you are happy with the way things are now.
- kingmanic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5I think the Fed was a very bad idea. Having a private unaccountable entity with massive control over the economy and currency in general was a bad idea. Other nations don't tend to do this and have a nationalized central bank which is at least more responsive to criticism. Also, the current situation didn't occur due to currency weaknesses but to a combination of economic conditions, poor bank regulation and US Federal policy. Better bank regulation in regards to money lent vs money in reserve would have curbed the massive real estate inflation and subsequent market failure; If the Federal government wasn't in so much debt then the currency wouldn't have spiraled into a free fall when the real estate bubble burst; And if the FED and other economic agencies had let the economy relax (ie. allowed a minor recession to take place in the late 90's early 2000's) we would have to shrink so much. Periodic slowing of economic activity is natural and it allows certain sectors to catch up and stabilize their growth. The runaway growth and easy credit that was used to stave that off meant the coming recession was just bigger as more time is need now to solidify those gains. I don't see an issue with the fiat currencies as they exist as they are still subject to market forces (A US dollar is only worth what others will trade for it), no more or less stable then tying it down to another value abstraction like precious metals. I'd prefer if there was simply more transparency, less 'loop whole' business practices, and better federal fiscal policy in the US.
/armchair economist rant- imacommi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I agree with you that this is a problem of runaway debt, but I would like to see some sort of a intrinsic value floor for our currency. Almost like the way you would view the pricing of an option: intrinsic value + volatility value= option value
I think this could work well for a currency if it had some sort of an underlying value tied to commodities or precious metals, and then have some value on top of that which is based on the faith of the government. This would allow for a more stable currency AND allow for growth based on the manipulation of the money supply. Just an idea, but this is what I would like to see.
- imacommi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I agree with you that this is a problem of runaway debt, but I would like to see some sort of a intrinsic value floor for our currency. Almost like the way you would view the pricing of an option: intrinsic value + volatility value= option value
- kingmanic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5I think the Fed was a very bad idea. Having a private unaccountable entity with massive control over the economy and currency in general was a bad idea. Other nations don't tend to do this and have a nationalized central bank which is at least more responsive to criticism. Also, the current situation didn't occur due to currency weaknesses but to a combination of economic conditions, poor bank regulation and US Federal policy. Better bank regulation in regards to money lent vs money in reserve would have curbed the massive real estate inflation and subsequent market failure; If the Federal government wasn't in so much debt then the currency wouldn't have spiraled into a free fall when the real estate bubble burst; And if the FED and other economic agencies had let the economy relax (ie. allowed a minor recession to take place in the late 90's early 2000's) we would have to shrink so much. Periodic slowing of economic activity is natural and it allows certain sectors to catch up and stabilize their growth. The runaway growth and easy credit that was used to stave that off meant the coming recession was just bigger as more time is need now to solidify those gains. I don't see an issue with the fiat currencies as they exist as they are still subject to market forces (A US dollar is only worth what others will trade for it), no more or less stable then tying it down to another value abstraction like precious metals. I'd prefer if there was simply more transparency, less 'loop whole' business practices, and better federal fiscal policy in the US.
- stealthc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1First, Quit fixating on the gold; this is really about asset-backed money versus paper. The market should be able to pick whatever asset works best. If you think gold would be better used in something else, feel free to melt your coins. In a free market that would be possible.
Second, a fixed supply of money does not hamper the growth of an economy. While the US economy was using gold it made economic progress that would make today's China look anemic. A fixed money supply keeps government from getting cute with its accounting, and in the general economy it pushes prices down over time. This is actually a good thing, no matter what the armchair investors think. It makes savings a better vehicle for prosperity than debt, which makes it easier for consumers and entrepreneurs to stay in the black. People institute fiat money in an effort to take away the pain functions of a market. An economy without fiat money may feel more painful at times, but at least it won't spiral itself into collapse the way fiat money almost always does.
- sacherjj, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Reverting to the Gold standard will not happen until the dollar completely collapses, ala Zimbabwe right now. Everyone there is a billionaire, but can't buy anything. It would be great to have competing currencies. The powers that be, the same that confiscated all of the Liberty dollar headquarters, will never let that happen. Why? Because an ounce of gold today buys what it did in 1900. A top of the line suit in 1900 and a top of the line suit today. The dollar doesn't. Having a "real" currency available would show how much of a joke the fiat dollar really is. The powers that be will not let that happen over our dead bodies.
- Tyrghast, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4just post the link and not a space wasting comment...
- otw7, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1For real dude or at least summarize a little. Copy and pasting a big ass article doesn't make you a renown genius in economics.
- mijelh, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6I absolutely agree with kingmanic. Only to cite some references on what he said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency - chambana, on 05/07/2008, -7/+5hahaha what are u living in the early 1900s, gold limits economic expansion, why should an economy grow just by how much gold we find, that would suck and did, that's why we don't use it to back the dollar anymore
- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2fair enough, but the currency should be backed by assets with real intrinsic value rather than paper. I agree that it is hard to keep an expansion booming due to the problems of a limited money supply, but if we were to use gold, silver, zinc, copper, wheat, and all sorts of other commodities (maybe not wheat or commodities that are perishable) we would have a much more stable currency whose value would not be diminished in the same fashion. I personally wouldn't have a problem with our currency if it had at least something other than our governments word behind it
- fac3less, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6lulz, seriously -- quiet. Just because someone lived in an age when there was less technology doesn't suddenly make their opinion and thoughts any less valid.
- silentboom, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1It can tend to make the ideas more valid as the human mind has trouble dealing with increasingly difficult things and can tend to lose focus.
- jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7I think you'll find that uncontrolled economic expansion hurts the economy too. Look around. The limitless credit idea worked out real well, don't you think?
- FrostedFlame, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5Actually you are wrong. And so is Thomas Paine. The value of gold does change as the amount of wealth within the world is increased. If we were to use gold as a currency or back all of our currency by gold it would mean, as other forms of material wealth are created, prices would slowly decrease because there would be a scarcity in the money that we would be using to exchange these different forms of wealth and there would be serious liquidity issues that would prevent people from spending and investing, both of which are the driving forces behind the creation of more wealth. Basically it would lead to a giant depression. Even if you borrowed against gold, essentially "creating" more money, the ultimate limitations on liquidity would lead the whole system to bubble and pop.
Thomas Paine was right about a few things, but the relationship between paper money and gold is not one of them.- kaelyiesta, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4I don't think you understand the notion of a backed currency. Lets suppose you are right about the finite amount of gold and increasing amount of purchasable things(wealth). Suppose that it does as you say cause a scarcity of gold to distribute amongst all the things one would purchase. This decreases the amount of gold each thing would be worth, as you pointed out. But that isn't the end of the story. A currency that acts as promissory notes for the underlying gold it represents(as opposed to paper money treated as legal tender with value in and of itself) would not be troubled by this. The amount of gold one can promise another can be abstracted down to infinitesimal quantities. So what if a cheeseburger costs .0001 ounces of gold or .000001? The physical transfer isn't sensible, but no one(in current times) ever argued for such a system. The promissory note, backed by the buyers actual money still works perfectly.
I myself am not arguing for a gold currency, just one that is fixed in value so that it cannot be produced out of thin air to the advantage of some over others.- kingmanic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2The point is it encourages deflation which encourages gold hoarding vs other forms of investment. Because the better everything else does relative to Gold extraction, the more gold is worth in proportion so it's usually more beneficial in such a system to invest in gold then to invest in other things which cripples economic growth.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3You are assuming that "Liquidity" is what we want out of a currency.
Perhaps the 4 or 5 economic busts just in the US history, may indicate that inflationary money supply and seeking after growth constantly, may not only be unsustainable -- but may be a rotten way to live.
- kaelyiesta, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4I don't think you understand the notion of a backed currency. Lets suppose you are right about the finite amount of gold and increasing amount of purchasable things(wealth). Suppose that it does as you say cause a scarcity of gold to distribute amongst all the things one would purchase. This decreases the amount of gold each thing would be worth, as you pointed out. But that isn't the end of the story. A currency that acts as promissory notes for the underlying gold it represents(as opposed to paper money treated as legal tender with value in and of itself) would not be troubled by this. The amount of gold one can promise another can be abstracted down to infinitesimal quantities. So what if a cheeseburger costs .0001 ounces of gold or .000001? The physical transfer isn't sensible, but no one(in current times) ever argued for such a system. The promissory note, backed by the buyers actual money still works perfectly.
- suzywang3000, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4paper money is valued according to the assets backing the money. In the case of the US dollar, it is backed by gold and US gov't bonds. Just because the dollar is not physically convertible into gold doesn't make it intrinsically worthless - it is backed by bonds and convertible into those bonds. more at:
http://www.csun.edu/~hceco008/realbills.htm - nullcodes, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Thomas Paine was a great man and vital patriot, but he is talking about truths of his time. You basically havent understood basic economics.
It's like showing me a document that says Socrates believed the earth was flat. That's not proof the earth is flat, it fails to incorporate X many years of scientific analysis, testing, knowledge, and refinement.
If your currency is backed by a material .. say gold .. if suddenly tomorrow a massive gold mine is found in Arabia .. Would the saudis own everything ? No, because gold is pretty much a useless metal .. ok yes it has uses in electronics etc. blah blah .. but that is actually a very limited amount of gold . A vast excess of gold is pretty much useless. I could see something like energy being useful for backing up a currency .. but gold .. makes no sense to me. If a vast cheap source of energy is found .. that actually can significantly boost people's quality of life .. far more than the discovery of a mountain made of pure gold.- mllawso, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1The thing is, paper is known to be worthless. Gold and silver, on the other hand, have been proven to be stable. Everyone, regardless of where they live on the planet, wants gold. If you're worried about "some massive gold mine being discovered", a currency can be backed by other things of value as well. The problem with an unbacked currency is that it's value is at the whim of the market: there's no safeguards against runaway inflation.
- kaelyiesta, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3"but covetousness, when not connected with dishonesty, is not properly a vice."
I always liked that part. - jerbaker, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1"The only value that it really has is directly related to what materials underpin a currency."
Not really. As with ALL things in a commodity market (and money is a commodity), it has whatever value its demand creates. If everybody agrees that a dollar has some worth, then it has worth. Simple as that. There are thousands of works of art that have no intrinsic value other than a couple bucks worth of paint, yet they sell for millions. It's the same principle. The dollar is worth what it is because they are in demand and people agree to take them as renumeration for goods and services. - VitriolAndAngst, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1All right, I'm not into Bumper Sticker comments -- but you just used ten pages to state the obvious that Gold has intrinsic value and money diminishes with volume (called fiat paper).
I almost doused myself with gasoline, almost. - h0m3styl3, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4One of the characteristics of commodity money– one that originated naturally in the marketplace– is that it must serve as a store of value. Gold and silver meet that test– paper does not. Because of this profound difference, the incentive and wisdom of holding emergency funds in the form of gold becomes attractive when the official currency is being devalued. It’s more attractive than trying to save wealth in the form of a fiat currency, even when earning some nominal interest. The lack of earned interest on gold is not a problem once people realize the purchasing power of their currency is declining faster than the interest rates they might earn. The purchasing power of gold can rise even faster than increases in the cost of living.
-Ron Paul
- imacommi, on 05/07/2008, -11/+36Paper money appears at first sight to be a great saving, or rather that it costs nothing; but it is the dearest money there is. The ease with which it is emitted by an assembly at first serves as a trap to catch people in at last. It operates as an anticipation of the next year's taxes. If the money depreciates, after it is out, it then, as I have already remarked, has the effect of fluctuating stock, and the people become stock-jobbers to throw the loss on each other.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -9/+68Oil is the new "gold". Oil represents mobility and freedom. It is the life blood of all developed nations and the created scarcity and control of it, is the new weapon of tyranny!
- elamr, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1So that is why Dennis Klein & Stanely Meyer must be surpressed. The value of the dollar is controlled by Oil?.. man, if that is true they really are idiots.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3The value of the dollar is meaningless! The true world currency is oil and all other commodity shortages reflect this fact.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Consider this my courtesy response, but as you are a friend of Kevin Rose, you will not receive another.
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Maybe you heard, oil is priced and traded only in dollars.
- sonofblacula, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Created scarcity? Are you saying that there is plenty of oil, and the apparently dwindling supply is a government conspiracy theory? Where exactly do you think oil comes from, the reptilian's long-chain hydrocarbon factory?
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5...And you are another ill informed adolescent, so, do your own research. Oil did not come from dinosaurs and is not scarce.
- mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2No, its not.
However the easy to get to (and cheap) kind sure as ***** is kid. Now get back to math class or you will get a detention.
- mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2No, its not.
- Kyan, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1From condensed cow farts. Totally renewable.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5...And you are another ill informed adolescent, so, do your own research. Oil did not come from dinosaurs and is not scarce.
- mijelh, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3You made a very interesting point, but I think it can be abstracted a little more and say that Energy in general is the new "gold", whether it comes from oil, wind, coal, fission, etc...
- curtisag, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Not really, you can't buy and sell fission energy on the market. I can't stockpile wind energy in my backyard for a rainy day to sell at a later date for a profit. Oil is an asset that can be delivered, held, and sold at any time.
- mijelh, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0But you can buy energy stored not only in the form of oil: You can stockpile coal, as you can buy and sell uranium (well, not everybody can, but you know what I mean). With renewable energy (excepting wood), it's obviously not the case though.
- pitlord, on 05/07/2008, -3/+21920 called, they want their conspiracy back.
>.> - kymike, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Easy oil supplies are growing smaller, yes, but that is not the real cause of the huge increase in the price of oil. The real reasons are 1) Speculation in the commodities market; and 2) Decrease in value of the US dollar.
Just like corn & ethanol: It is true that the amount of corn currently being converted to ethanol does not have a large impact on the amount of corn available for other uses. HOWEVER - the very fact that corn is being diverted to ethanol allows the speculators to drive up the price of corn and other commodities that are in any way related to corn. It's just like the stock market - "investors" (really, speculators) will buy stocks at prices that depend on their earnings multiple. With corn, the conversion to ethanol provides room for speculators to bid up the price.- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Good points except that the price of oil is also increasing against the Euro and just about every other currency.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Oil WAS the New Gold.
The US Dollar was on solid foundation, while the US domination could control that. The first Iraq invasion was probably more to stop Saddam from moving to the Euro than his incursion into Kuwait.
But the oil cartels are moving away from the dollar -- that ship has sailed.
Saddam's incursion into Kuwait was given the blessing by Jim Baker -- who probably would not have accidentally said "go ahead" unless the fix was in. I'm still not sure if Saddam was in on it or not. But the invasion stopped the Kuwaiti rulers from having to deal with a budding Democratic movement in that country. And you will notice that they were all conveniently out of the country when the invasion began.
I'd say the new "backing" of the Dollar is based upon what lands and resources are under our control (that's why Bush doesn't want to leave Iraq), and also based upon our military's ability to cause trouble. Not a very stable long-term idea if you ask me.
So, in a nutshell, the new "Gold" is Fear. Will that help to make sense of the world now?- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Fear as a commodity is suffering the effects of "information inflation"! As you can see by the level of knowledgeable information flowing through these threads "for the most part anyway." Fear doesn't quite hold the same power over the masses as it once did. An informed populace is the elitist ghouls worst nightmare!
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Agreed. But it doesn't stop the old dogs from performing the same old tricks.
I think that strangely, Bush was a blessing. Because if Clinton had been used to do the same thing, such as; two illegal wars, use a disaster to gentrify New Orleans and, sell off the infrastructure of the US -- well, he wouldn't have looked like such an idiot.
So, be happy that Bush let everyone see behind the curtain. I don't think he invented the idea of a phony Democracy in front of an imperial kleptocracy -- but he sure made it obvious.- lazerus9, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I agree.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Agreed. But it doesn't stop the old dogs from performing the same old tricks.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Fear as a commodity is suffering the effects of "information inflation"! As you can see by the level of knowledgeable information flowing through these threads "for the most part anyway." Fear doesn't quite hold the same power over the masses as it once did. An informed populace is the elitist ghouls worst nightmare!
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I think you mean the weapon of tyranny since WWI. Still true though.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Not really.
I mean; Crazy enough to do anything -- so China, please buy our currency.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Not really.
- elamr, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1So that is why Dennis Klein & Stanely Meyer must be surpressed. The value of the dollar is controlled by Oil?.. man, if that is true they really are idiots.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -4/+12Who are the ones gaining control over all of US? Goldman Suck's for one and here is a link that explains a lot!...https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNew ...
- Conspiracy20, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11Goldman Sachs recorded RECORD profits last year while everyone else is hurting
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Have you noticed how all of the shills have shown up on this thread recently?
We have hit a nerve with the NWO! - fac3less, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2So did Enron a few years before.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Have you noticed how all of the shills have shown up on this thread recently?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3And of course ADM and Monsanto with a manufactured commodities crisis -- their profits have doubled.
Do you know, that we had record output and exports of corn -- even with the 20% being used for energy? So why is it so much more expensive to feed animals?- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Great points!
- Conspiracy20, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11Goldman Sachs recorded RECORD profits last year while everyone else is hurting
- AlwaysAwake, on 05/07/2008, -15/+32"The United States will do what it takes to calm the markets". Chilling indeed. If the credit/debt bubble bursts before World War III, all this maneuvering will be for nothing, as far as those in The New World Order behind the curtain of The Central Banks are concerned. They need to finance all sides to create new debt, so they can enslave survivors with more worthless paper "currency".
- superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -6/+3How is the government saying it's going to try and keep markets stable "chilling"? It's the whole point of the Fed!
- logicet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3No, the purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank (A private company owned by its shareholders, just like Federal Express) is to make money. Their marketing department just likes to call it market stabilization rather than manipulation.
- sonofblacula, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Yes, absolutely chilling. I crave instability so that the value of my paycheck can basically be the output of a random number generator. God DAMN the government for not allowing chaos and anarchy to thrive!!!
- logicet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3The Federal Reserve Bank is not the government. Go watch "The Creature From Jekyll Island" on video.google.com . After that go check out Econ 101, market manipulation doesn't work to stabilize anything over the long term.
- xen0blue, on 05/07/2008, -7/+3so how was the reception at the tin foil banquet?
- PolishLogic, on 05/07/2008, -6/+3Buried for New World Order.
- mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -6/+3"New World Order", I love moonbats that throw that term around. Makes it easy to identify complete ***** morons so I dont have to read the rest of their ranting factless posts.
- Shots, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Needs Citation.
- logicet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4"The Money Masters" on video.google.com - let me know if you'd like any more citation when you're done with that.
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I don't know if it's chilling so much as it is monumentally stupid. They sold off their gold to prop up the value of a paper currency?
Bra-va! *golf clap*
- superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -6/+3How is the government saying it's going to try and keep markets stable "chilling"? It's the whole point of the Fed!
- kemp34, on 05/07/2008, -2/+36Watch out for a very turbulent summer.
- MikeFromAmerica, on 05/07/2008, -1/+13Don't worry. We will have the gas tax holiday and our $600 tax rebates to placate us.
- Shots, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Long Volatility.
I hope you guys have diversified your investments....- MrSketch, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1International funds, ftw.
- Truzseeker, on 05/07/2008, -11/+13The private Fed stoled the gold using their form of government back in the 30's, then later using their agency henchmen outright stealing from private individuals using some lame excuses such as counterfeiting, or money laundering. Now their selling it back to the public ?! WTF As for WHY Article 1 Section 10 requirements...research Roger Sherman.
- danielbook, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4You know, it's kinda hard to believe a word you said when you don't give any proof.. or when you invent words like "stoled." i'm guessing you're failing your 9th grade english class?
- DutchGuilder, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12For proof google "reagan gold commission". When Reagan took office he wanted to know how much gold did the US government have in Fort Knox, so he tasked a "gold commission". They came back with the answer: 0. The government owned none of it, because the Fed (a private corporation) had taken ownership of all the gold as collateral against the federal debt. The first time you read this your reaction will be disbelief, then rationalization (the fed is owned but the govt, right? No it isn't), then the realization that yes the nation's gold really seems to have been "stolen". The gold still may be in Fort Knox, but in 1930s it was all owned by the US, then by the 1970s none was owned by the US.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5He is not looking for answers, he is here to ridicule and shift the discussion away from the subject being discussed. Just another digg brigade shil!
- Kyan, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Dude, he is in the 8th grade. How can he fail 9th grade English?
- siszam, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Daniel if you were half as smart as you think you are you could do your own research. You're online. Stop being lazy and expecting others to educate you. You always know when someone is so willfully ignorant they will ignore all evidence. That kind of person always says, "prove it" but won't spend two minutes on Google to find the proof themselves.
- logicet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3It will take more than 2 minutes to watch "The Creature from Jekyll Island" and "The Money Masters" on video.google.com - but it would take less than 2 minutes to find them, I'll give you that.
- DutchGuilder, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12For proof google "reagan gold commission". When Reagan took office he wanted to know how much gold did the US government have in Fort Knox, so he tasked a "gold commission". They came back with the answer: 0. The government owned none of it, because the Fed (a private corporation) had taken ownership of all the gold as collateral against the federal debt. The first time you read this your reaction will be disbelief, then rationalization (the fed is owned but the govt, right? No it isn't), then the realization that yes the nation's gold really seems to have been "stolen". The gold still may be in Fort Knox, but in 1930s it was all owned by the US, then by the 1970s none was owned by the US.
- lazerus9, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Don't pay any attention to that shill. He has been a digg member since 2006 and only commented three times? I say he qualifies as a digg brigade sleeper shill. They must really be getting worried!
- danielbook, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4You know, it's kinda hard to believe a word you said when you don't give any proof.. or when you invent words like "stoled." i'm guessing you're failing your 9th grade english class?
- rmxz, on 05/07/2008, -5/+28Why the obsession with Gold anyway. Wouldn't we be better off with a Silver Standard (like the old Silver Certificates) - since Silver's valuable too, but not so rare that it's easy to manipulate the price of (like gold obviously is, as evidenced by the article).
- rizzo2008, on 05/07/2008, -3/+18Silver is ok to. The Constitution only specifically allows for gold and silver currency
- Kyan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8And we can amend it to allow copper as well.
- mavere, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2Anyone else find it distressing that some people want our economy to be dictated by a 250 year old piece of paper?
- silentboom, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3You just don't get it.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Yes, but even with that, they went after Ron Paul's silver coins with a vengeance. Though I'm not a supporter of his -- I do think it was perfectly in his right to get people to use it as currency. Though -- what is constitutional and what is allowed are two different things.
- Shots, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Gold, cos OTHER people will pay you 850 an oz for it.
- logicet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Actually silver is easier to manipulate. It used to be there was more silver than gold, as you might have heard and currently believe. However, over the past 40 years we have used up more silver every year than we mine, so there is much less silver than gold above ground right now. They manipulate silver with paper - currently there is about a years worth of mine production sold "short" in the futures market by the 8 largest banks/traders.
- rizzo2008, on 05/07/2008, -3/+18Silver is ok to. The Constitution only specifically allows for gold and silver currency
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -36/+12The FED prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, and charges the terrorist United States Government interest!
United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.
9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?
Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!
Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!
Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.- broonsbain, on 05/07/2008, -6/+7Tin foil hat time........
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -5/+6NO FACTS ON YOUR SIDE, AND YOU KEEP HOPING THE SHEEPLE WILL SUCK THIS UP.
GOOD LUCK!- mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -5/+5I gotta ask, do you ever take a step back and think "god, I am one crazy inbreed tard. I guess huffing freon was a bad idea afterall"?
Does the state run mental facility you are locked up in allow you to use the web all the time? Or just on the days you dont expose yourself to the staff?
- mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -5/+5I gotta ask, do you ever take a step back and think "god, I am one crazy inbreed tard. I guess huffing freon was a bad idea afterall"?
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -5/+6NO FACTS ON YOUR SIDE, AND YOU KEEP HOPING THE SHEEPLE WILL SUCK THIS UP.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -10/+9Anyone that thinks kerosene fires melt steel is an idiot!
How did those huge molten pools of metal, get under the twin towers, and building 7?
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"- stealthc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I really wish people would accept the obvious and start asking *who* set the charges in those buildings. Like Patrick Henry, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
- elamr, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8If your message is important you've got to be more subtle with your argument. You should always remember your audience. Know your audience. Most Digg users are NOT usually going to respond to emotional ranting. Be creative. Don't just rant you'll just get dug down.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Who says the truth has emotion?
Nobody would accuse a neocon of not being creative.
The truth is NOT on their side, they rely on deceit to maintain power.- Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Fine then use deceit. It's effective.
- mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Dont give him any credit, he cuts and pastes the same stupid little child like rant into every topic he can. He has been banned a few times, his name used to be BushTerrorist or something like that.
Think of him like a troll. A retarded, lifeless, more pathetic than usual sad little sexless troll.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Who says the truth has emotion?
- Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4Lay off the glue man, go back to weed.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4Go back to the TV, where you can suck up terrorist United States Government propaganda like a good little sheeple.
Your head is so far up your behind, it would take major surgery to get it out.- Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5I think you lack the ability to persuade anyone that you are correct. Relax a little. Try serving up a little at a time or your gonna choke your audience on bile.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4Go back to the TV, where you can suck up terrorist United States Government propaganda like a good little sheeple.
- sonofblacula, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3I am not going to engage in debate with you, because logic and evidence have no meaning to you. You first create a scenario in your mind that you find sufficiently dramatic to satisfy your need for meaning and excitement in a mundane world, and then find scraps of information that fit that model. Repeat after me "I am not a structural engineer. Other people know more about economics and government than I do. The knights templar haven't existed in over 700 years. There are no reptilian aliens." Repeat that in the mirror once a day, and get back on your meds.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -5/+5You're an idiot! Can you Google?
Repeat after me, these words are from structural engineers:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -5/+5You're an idiot! Can you Google?
- stix213, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3How can you look at yourself in the mirror with all that hate built up inside you?
Maybe building 7 collapsed because two of the tallest buildings in the world just fell on it? Maybe???
Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction??? Give me a break, that stuff is safe enough to sleep with it under your pillow.
"Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you."
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq/faq_du.jsp- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4How did the molten steel get under building 7 for the second time? Can you say thermite?
You're so in denial!
Depleted Uranium is WMD!
Tell the soldier the truth about Depleted Uranium, and the soldier won't go to war.
It's too bad the soldier doesn't know, Depleted Uranium kills, and the soldier is expendable.
350 tons used in the first Gulf War, and the current Iraq war has expended an estimated 5 times more tonnage of DU than was used in the first Gulf War.
The U.S. has used more depleted uranium since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs.
Since 1943 the military has been aware of the extreme toxicity of uranium as a gas.
Of the veterans who served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA healthcare, and more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims.
518,000 Gulf-era vets in 2004 are now on medical disability.
Four reasons why using depleted uranium weapons violates the UN Convention on Human Rights:
LEGALITY TEST FOR WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Four reasons why using depleted uranium weapons violates the UN Convention on Human Rights:
TEMPORAL TEST – Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.
ENVIRONMENTAL TEST – Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.
TERRITORIAL TEST – Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.
HUMANENESS TEST – Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanly.
BTW: 9-11 Was An Inside Job! - barkus, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I agree with you on your first point... the damage of the other towers falling is a plausible explanation for the collapse of tower 7.
But you're missing the point on depleted uranium. Sure, It is relative harmless outside the body, but when a DU round makes impact it aerosols into a fine dust. This DU dust can enter your body (from the air water etc) and it's seriously bad *****.
Here's a decent 2 minute flash video on the topic
http://www.ericblumrich.com/pl_lo.html- mockingdigg, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2More dumbasses claming building 7 dropped in freefall due to debris from WTC? The people who claim this have no concept of basic physics. Please offer me a plausable explaination of how this occured? The building went down in a freefall.
Watch this and then tell me that debris caused it to fall in this way?
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/doc ...
Please come back when you understand basic concepts.- barkus, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Try not to fall so in love with an idea because when that happens your emotions blind your reasoning. Here's an excerpt of a plausible explanation, you can read the whole thing if you want, but I'm pretty sure it will have no effect you your beliefs.
"The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/421 ... - mockingdigg, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Actually, I could care less that the buildings were destroyed, and have no emotion for the situation. That day doesn't mean a damn thing to me and affected me none whatsoever. What I do have emotion for is science, and nothing else. I am tired of people spinning science for their own benefit. The main stream media is going to provide this garbage to cover up real science because it is controlled by the government plan and simple.. How about some real unbiased sources?:
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook
http://chartsky.com/trades/2007/09/30/wtc-building ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-241785266 ...
"Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones is the latest credible individual to come forward and assert that the official story of 9/11 differs wildly from the observable facts.
- Building 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which is .6 seconds quicker than it would take an object dropped from the roof of the building to hit the floor. This violates fundamental laws of physics, unless the building was brought down by explosives.
- Buildings that collapse without the aid of explosives produce large piles of in-tact concrete and do not turn to dust as they are falling, as was witnessed on 9/11. "
Why was building 7 completely left out of the 9-11 commision report by the government? That's convenient of them. Lets just pretend that it didn't happen!
How about the major news networks reporting its collapse 20 minutes before it fell? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
A building does not fall in freefall .6 seconds quicker than it should due to a partially damaged side.
- barkus, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Try not to fall so in love with an idea because when that happens your emotions blind your reasoning. Here's an excerpt of a plausible explanation, you can read the whole thing if you want, but I'm pretty sure it will have no effect you your beliefs.
- mockingdigg, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2More dumbasses claming building 7 dropped in freefall due to debris from WTC? The people who claim this have no concept of basic physics. Please offer me a plausable explaination of how this occured? The building went down in a freefall.
- usgovterrorists, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4How did the molten steel get under building 7 for the second time? Can you say thermite?
- FecalHurler, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Uggh. Get some new material to copy and paste, could you?
- mike17032, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4Off our meds again I see.
At least we know you will never, ever, get laid. Even if you offered to pay for it. So there is no risk of your defective seed getting passed on. - ChristmasPoo, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Re-roll life, you failed.... Idiot
- broonsbain, on 05/07/2008, -6/+7Tin foil hat time........
- nonsequitor, on 05/07/2008, -5/+14Good for them, they bought when prices were low and sold when they were high.
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2That would be good if they were private investors. These are the nation's gold reserves.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -19/+14Why does gold have “value” (intrinsic or otherwise)? It has precious few uses outside of jewelry, you can’t eat it, it won’t keep you warm. Species money amounts to little more than a fetish.
If you really want to know why species money is dumb idea (which is why it no longer exits) listen to this great podcast from an ACTUAL economist.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/03/cowen_on_ ...- NCg8r, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12It's inert, non-toxic to humans and conducts electricity... So we got that going for us...
- mooseontheloose, on 05/07/2008, -2/+14Probably because of those reasons. There's not much point in putting intrinsic value upon materials that can be used up or renewed at will (like oil or trees). The unchanging nature of gold (along with its relative scarcity) is precisely the reason it's valuable. A gold bar in 10 years is still a gold bar, but if you use a barrel of oil it's gone.
- trogdor282, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7The problem with our paper money isn't that it's made of paper, it's that it's derived from credit. It's basically a pyramid scheme. If the government just printed paper money it would be as effective as gold, but instead we're stuck in this reserve banking bizarro world where everything of value ultimately belongs to one bank or another.
- StGhurka, on 05/07/2008, -2/+6Monster can put a touch-o-gold in a set of $10 speaker cables and sell them for $150.
- republicker, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Shiny things are the reason humanity has bothered to progress. It would be nice to live off the grid, with no money, providing for yourself in every aspect of life. The problem is the government has created a system where this is impossible w/out money(paper,gold,silver). You never own anything 100%, you are merely a servant of the state working to pay your taxes(king ransom) on land you will never own
- scottyokim, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4The Cowen mp3 you recommend starts out with a strawman argument ("If we held money supply fixed ..."), so I would be cautious in holding up this "ACTUAL economist" as your authority.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Right, because he has a Ph.D in ecnonimics from Havard and you have...?
- scottyokim, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5I'm not trying to upset you, but your reply is another logic error: the "appeal to authority."
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3That's an incorrect usage of that fallacy. Were I to site him on a discussion on baseball then it would apply.
A PhD in economics makes him an actual economist. - Chandon, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2The "appeal to authority" fallacy applies to *any* appeal to authority, regardless of the validity of anyone's credentials. People can be wrong, and therefore "someone said something" is not a valid logical argument.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3That's an incorrect usage of that fallacy. Were I to site him on a discussion on baseball then it would apply.
- scottyokim, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5I'm not trying to upset you, but your reply is another logic error: the "appeal to authority."
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Right, because he has a Ph.D in ecnonimics from Havard and you have...?
- GothAlice, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4You must have asked rhetorically, as every school child knows that gold is rare, beautiful, and used for a variety of things other than jewellery. It's in nearly all electronics to some degree or another. It's underlying value doesn't change much -- some gold goes missing, more gold is dug up -- but it's value relative to individual currencies does change. Because it is stable, it was (and is!) used as currency. There -are- a few gold-backed economies still in the world; Japan being one of them.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Which hasn’t saved it from economic troubles, stagnant growth and massive deflation.
- fac3less, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Which is a result of Japan's proximity to China, a negative population growth rate and having a few nuclear bombs take out morale for a few years.
- mavere, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Are you suggesting that Japan's economic issues for the past 2 decades stem from two 60 year old bombs and an economy that wasn't really much of anything until a decade ago? I would love to see your analysis how all these things tie together, considering the massive time span.
- fac3less, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Which is a result of Japan's proximity to China, a negative population growth rate and having a few nuclear bombs take out morale for a few years.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Which hasn’t saved it from economic troubles, stagnant growth and massive deflation.
- brjohnson789, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8Species money is not a dumb idea if you understand the purpose of money. The argument for a central bank w/ fiat money assumes the people pulling the levers have no ulterior motive, which is not a realistic assumption since these are people pulling the levers, not angels.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Any system in which humans control the rules will be subject to human manipulation. Gold is subject to endless manipulation by Governments and speculators. The best you can hope for is transparency.
- brjohnson789, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4WRONG. An ounce of gold = an ounce of gold. The only thing gov'ts and speculators can manipulate is how much they hold and sell. The purchasing power of gold could temporarily be influenced by massive buying/hoarding/selling, but over time it is very stable. The 'gold markets' would be as transparent as what happens on the DOW. It certainly would be more transparent than the Fed Reserve. And by the way, these 'economists' you link to are pretty dumb. They're basically acting like humans have existed for the last 300 years, and since we've had relative stability in the last 50 years from the Fed, fiat money must be good. God forbid going back a couple thousand years where you will see any economy/empire that had fiat money did quite poorly eventually. Over time the ONLY time economies have stability over a long period of time is when they are on a species form of money. Also, they are quite naive if they think the people in Fed have no ulterior motives. If you put the power of speeding up or slowing down the economy into a private entity (with no oversight), assuming they will not use that power to their advantage is about as naive as giving candy to a kid, turning your back, and telling them not to eat it.
- covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The purchasing power of gold is not stable. It is dictated via supply and demand, as is everything else. If we all used gold for money, the price of oil and food and consumer goods would not, repeat NOT remain constant - therefore the purchasing power is variable. For instance, if we found an oil-field tomorrow that wouldn't be exhausted for thousands of years even if we quadrupled our consumption, then the price of oil would plummet massively. Similarly, if the world's refineries all stopped working tomorrow and couldn't be fixed for a decade, prices would go through the roof. Having a gold-backed currency would make no difference at all. To see a non-fictional example of this, go and look up gold and oil prices in 1980 (when both were at or near record highs) and work out how many barrels of oil 1oz of gold would buy. I'll give you a hint - it's more than twice as much as now, indicating the oil-purchasing power of gold has halved in the last 30 years.
- jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1If you go back a few thousand years, I think you'll find that EVERY empire did poorly, eventually. They're all gone, except China and Russia, and neither of those are what I would call good living right now.
- brjohnson789, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2The purchasing power of gold has not been stable the last 30 years since there is no formal tie between $ and gold. If you consider that the total supply of gold is very static though, and it were used as money, then by definition prices would remain steady, assuming the actual production of a particular good remained steady. You have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of goods. Prices would not fluctuate. I don't understand why this is so difficult.
And yes, over time we all die. But if you look at the reason why empires expired, you won't find one that collapsed due to a wildly fluctuating money supply if their money was gold. But you WILL find empires that had big trouble when they used fiat money, and subsequently abused that money. - covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2"You have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of goods."
For pity's sake! The most basic economic principle of all is supply and demand. IT DOESN'T MATTER if you have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of goods - if suddenly demand for something goes up and supply stays the same, then the price goes up. This is fundamental. A gold-backed currency can do NOTHING about this, and nor can a currency backed by diamonds, nuclear waste, alien technology, chickens, or anything else. You're chasing a chimera - if we ever did get a gold-backed currency it'd take about a week for you to realise it hasn't solved your problems for you and you'd start blaming something else. Get a grip. - brjohnson789, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1"IT DOESN'T MATTER if you have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of goods - if suddenly demand for something goes up and supply stays the same, then the price goes up. " First you say its the same amount of goods & money, then you say price goes up from demand going up. I guess its pretty clear which one of us here actuallly took some economic classes. Maybe demand for that one type of good will go up, but since its still the same amount of money, that means people will then buy less of something else; the gold has the same buying power then. Overall the same amount of goods are being produced. Now, if you're trying to say production increases and there are now more goods being purchased, then overall prices actually go down. Maybe the price of good where there's higher demand will go up, but that will be more than offset by a lower price in other goods.
- brjohnson789, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4WRONG. An ounce of gold = an ounce of gold. The only thing gov'ts and speculators can manipulate is how much they hold and sell. The purchasing power of gold could temporarily be influenced by massive buying/hoarding/selling, but over time it is very stable. The 'gold markets' would be as transparent as what happens on the DOW. It certainly would be more transparent than the Fed Reserve. And by the way, these 'economists' you link to are pretty dumb. They're basically acting like humans have existed for the last 300 years, and since we've had relative stability in the last 50 years from the Fed, fiat money must be good. God forbid going back a couple thousand years where you will see any economy/empire that had fiat money did quite poorly eventually. Over time the ONLY time economies have stability over a long period of time is when they are on a species form of money. Also, they are quite naive if they think the people in Fed have no ulterior motives. If you put the power of speeding up or slowing down the economy into a private entity (with no oversight), assuming they will not use that power to their advantage is about as naive as giving candy to a kid, turning your back, and telling them not to eat it.
- Number23, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Any system in which humans control the rules will be subject to human manipulation. Gold is subject to endless manipulation by Governments and speculators. The best you can hope for is transparency.
- karolisonline, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3gold is widely used in high-tech, weaponry and space-tech... gold isn't just for jewelery.
- judicar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4When gold was the basis for most economies there was no known use for it outside of decoration or filling teeth, it really had no intrinsic value and was only valuable because of it's beauty and scarcity. Gold is now known to be extremely useful for a variety of reasons but that was never the reason why it was used to back an economy.
- franksalvo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Precious metals exist in a constant amount. If the value of the dollar were based on that constant it would mean slow, sustainable growth. Instead of amassing 6 trillion in debt in thirty years, that debt would have been spread out over a longer period of time. In our current system, the Reserve can create as much money as the consumer demands. In a gold based system, the consumer could only demand as much as was available. This means no bubbles, no hyperinflation, no recessions.
It also means sustainable growth, population control, and resource management.- covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1A period of sustained deflation (which is what you'd have with a growing economy and static money supply) would be catastrophic, since there'd be reduced incentive to invest and greater incentive to hoard. Want a loan to start up a business and provide local employment? Sorry buddy, I'm not taking any risks with my investment capital when I can keep it under the mattress and let it grow in value with no risk whatsoever. Want to borrow money to buy a property? Tough luck, for the same reason. Price of oil gone up cos we've run out, in strict accordance with the laws of supply and demand? Oh, looks like inflation after all.
Inflation is easy to deal with - you only keep a small percentage of your assets in cash. Deflation, however, ***** the whole economy without recourse.- jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I have no assets. All I have is a paycheque, and a need for food and gas, rent and internet.
Inflation is a disaster for me.- covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Then you need to start addressing that. Live below your means, or if you can't do that, find ways to increase your income. Cancel your cable TV contract. Get a cheaper internet package. Cancel your cell phone or swap it for a pay-in-advance plan and use it for emergencies only. Pick up some freelance work on the web. Cook your own meals and take sandwiches to work. Get a bar job. Downsize your car and apartment. Sell your videogame systems and games. Start a business helping people fix their computers.
Use the money to buy shares (domestic and international), precious metals, bonds, and property. You may have to save up in cash before making some of these investments (especially property) during which time you are subject to inflation, but that's a stage most people have to suffer. Just deal with it.
If you come back to me saying you can't save any money and won't give up cable TV or videogames for the sake of your future, then get used to being poor. - jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I have little to sell, and oddly enough, if I cut off my cable TV, my internet costs more. I don't even watch the damn stuff.
Sadly, I need the internet, as I am at university right now. I have no intention of being poor for too much longer, but the road there is not easy. While on that road, I am very vulnerable. - covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1If you're still at university, then you have two things in your favour: 1) You are already investing (in yourself - something I omitted from my list), and 2) you are (probably) young and have time on your side. You might go through a period of exposure to inflation now, but unfortunately that's just something you're going to have to live with. I did.
If you do the right things when you start your career, then you can look forward to a future where this doesn't cause you any concern at all. I'm not there yet myself - maybe 10 more years, then I can greet income tax raises and inflation with a laugh and a smile. Income tax and inflation are most damaging to people for whom annual cash income represents the majority of their wealth (e.g. if you earn $80K and your net worth is, say, $50K, you're going to get battered; if you earn $80K but have $500K assets that compound year on year, it's no problem). Therefore, your goal should be to convert as much of your cash income as possible into non-cash assets that offer capital growth - that protects you on both counts. For now, tough it out.
- covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Then you need to start addressing that. Live below your means, or if you can't do that, find ways to increase your income. Cancel your cable TV contract. Get a cheaper internet package. Cancel your cell phone or swap it for a pay-in-advance plan and use it for emergencies only. Pick up some freelance work on the web. Cook your own meals and take sandwiches to work. Get a bar job. Downsize your car and apartment. Sell your videogame systems and games. Start a business helping people fix their computers.
- jgzman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I have no assets. All I have is a paycheque, and a need for food and gas, rent and internet.
- covertbadger, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1A period of sustained deflation (which is what you'd have with a growing economy and static money supply) would be catastrophic, since there'd be reduced incentive to invest and greater incentive to hoard. Want a loan to start up a business and provide local employment? Sorry buddy, I'm not taking any risks with my investment capital when I can keep it under the mattress and let it grow in value with no risk whatsoever. Want to borrow money to buy a property? Tough luck, for the same reason. Price of oil gone up cos we've run out, in strict accordance with the laws of supply and demand? Oh, looks like inflation after all.
- kaelyiesta, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3The idea is of a fixed quantity of something, which cannot really be consumed or created. Thats the ideal currency Paine thought gold to be:
"Gold and silver are the emissions of nature: paper is the emission of art. The value of gold and silver is ascertained by the quantity which nature has made in the earth. We cannot make that quantity more or less than it is, and therefore the value being dependent upon the quantity, depends not on man. Man has no share in making gold or silver; all that his labors and ingenuity can accomplish is, to collect it from the mine, refine it for use and give it an impression, or stamp it into coin.
Its being stamped into coin adds considerably to its convenience but nothing to its value. It has then no more value than it had before. Its value is not in the impression but in itself. Take away the impression and still the same value remains. Alter it as you will, or expose it to any misfortune that can happen, still the value is not diminished. It has a capacity to resist the accidents that destroy other things. It has, therefore, all the requisite qualities that money can have, and is a fit material to make money of — and nothing which has not all those properties can be fit for the purpose of money."
I stole that from the poster above fyi.
While gold is no longer quite so non consumable, at the time it was fairly fixed. The reason what Paine talks about is important for a currency should be obvious. If I could just create more money for myself with little effort, while devaluing yours and everyone else's, then such a currency would not last long and do great harm to those who couldn't fabricate more for themselves as well. - waynetheman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Gold has many chemical and electrical properties that we find useful. Plus, female humans seem to like the stuff.
So, why in the world should we instead back our currencies up with nothing except printed paper, where the only intrinsic "value" is the fact that it can burn? - Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1gold > paper
- NorthStateGonzo, on 05/07/2008, -11/+4Always thought Oil was known as " Black Gold"..Texas Tea..
http://www.myspace.com/pirat3bay
- an0nymous, on 05/07/2008, -5/+22The Plunge Protection Team is as anti free market as you can get..
Here's a scary thought, what if, in addition to unethically keeping commodities prices low they were also influencing the stock market by buying with recently printed money?
Seems crazy and conspiratical? Really? Think about it again. - shitforbrains, on 05/07/2008, -11/+22It's Dick Nixon's fault. He took us off of the Gold Standard to pay for Vietnam and ever since then the fed has been printing money and the government has been spending money like a drunken sailor (no disrespect to drunken sailors). It is an insidious tax. The more money they print, the less our money is worth, the more a barrel of oil costs etc. Dubya has of course taken it to a new and unprecedented level. If Phil Gramm was dead he'd be spinning in his grave.
If George Bush is a conservative then I'm a monkey. He has leveraged our future maybe forever so he can